Partly allowed

Manjula v. Sunderraj G

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2022MFA/2773/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed against the compensation awarded for the death of a 16-year-old girl in a motor accident. The court distinguished prior precedent regarding a 10-year-old minor, deemed the deceased an 'adolescent' with income-generating capacity, and modified the award to Rs. 10.57 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of total Rs. 10,57,200 awarded; additional sum of Rs. 5,29,265 with interest granted; impugned award modified; insurance company directed to pay within eight weeks.

Manjula Vs Sunderraj G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2773 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJULA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶8

SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶9

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

ASHWIN S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶11

(APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/NEXT FIREND HIS MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1) ALL ARE R/AT NO.442, HUDCO EXTENSION BANNIMANTAP MYSURU PIN:570011

¶12

NOW R/AT C/O MAHADEVU NERALKERE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICTPIN:571 405.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶17

AND:

¶18

SUNDERRAJ G S/O GOPAL SARASWATHI R/O SRINIVASA NILAYAM HOSA THIRUMAKUDALU T NARASIPURA MYSURU DISTRICT PIN:571101

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., SRI VENKATESWARA PLAZA NO.2912, 1ST STAGE, SARASWATHIPRUAM MYSURU PIN 570 009.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT:15/11/2022)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1121/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor

¶26

Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for

¶27

brevity) by the appellants–claimants, calling in question

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶30

the judgment and award dated 14.12.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.1121/2016, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

Brief facts:

¶32

On 26.11.2016 at about 2.10 p.m., on T.Narasipura – Mysuru Main Road, in front of service station, near New bridge when the claimant in MVC No.1120/2016, her daughter Anusha and son Ashwin were proceeding on Motor cycle as pillion riders towards Narasipura, the driver of private bus bearing registration No.KA-55-1032 drove it in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to motor cycle from its behind resulting in the claimant, Anusha and Ashwin falling down. As a result Anusha fell down and sustained grievous injuries on her head and other parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶35

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant-

¶36

claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of the minor. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a Global compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶37

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶38

5. The quantum of compensation awarded by the

¶39

Tribunal is resisted by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant.

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submitted that in the present case, the deceased was aged 16 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KISSAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. LALA AND OTHERS¹ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kissan Gopal’ case for brevity). Therefore, the compensation cannot be determined under the notional income as to be held in the case of death of adult. Therefore, justified the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶43

The present case is regarding death of 16 years old girl. The Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KISAN GOPAL ’s case stated supra, has awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at 9% interest per annum. The facts in KISHAN GOPAL ’s stated supra are

¶44

1 2013 AIR SCW 5037

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶47

that 10 years old minor died in the accident, therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and adopting the younger age of the parents has awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. But in the present case, the deceased was 16 years old girl. Therefore, there is difference of facts in the present case and in the case of KISHAN GOPAL ’s case stated supra. Whether, the ratio laid down in KISHAN GOPAL ’s case is applicable in the present case or not to be considered herein.

¶48

The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS VS. BABUJI.M² , held that in case of death of adolescent, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL stated supra, is not applicable, wherein it was observed at para – 10, 11 and 13 as follows:

¶49

2 MFA No.102268/2019 dated 13.11.2022

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶52

10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 17 years as on the date of the accident. He might not be an adult but he cannot be considered as a child. He has to be considered as an adolescent. Section 2 (i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) defines as follows:

¶53

“(i) “adolescent” means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age abut has

¶54

not completed his eighteenth year; “(ii) “child” means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more.”

¶55

11. Section 3 of the Act prohibits employment of a child in certain occupations and processes. The said Act does not prohibit the adolescent of 17 years to involve in a milk vending business. The deceased and his family are from rural area and it is common for a person of 17 years to be involved in milk vending or similar occupations. The Tribunal has completely lost sight of this fact and the reasoning is contrary to and in the teeth of the statutory provisions.

¶56

¶57

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶58

13. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 5037. In the said case, the age of the person involved in the accident was 10 years. The said ratio cannot be applied to the case of an adolescent who is 15 years and above.”

¶59

Therefore, in the present case the deceased is

¶60

‘Adolescent Child’ as per Section-2(i) and (ii) of the Child

¶61

And Adolescent Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, in the present case the deceased being 16 years old, accordingly, the deceased cannot be termed strictly as a child, therefore the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA’s stated supra is applicable and accordingly the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL’s is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances involved. The claimants themselves admitted that the deceased was contributing to family by earning Rs.6,000/- per month, when the claimant themselves admitted the said income of

¶62

¶63

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶64

the adolescent girl, in the present case, the same is considered her. Further, 40% of the income is to be added towards ‘ Loss Of Future Prospects’ and 50% of income is to be deducted towards ‘Living Expenses’ . The deceased was aged 16 years at the time of the accident, therefore the appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another³ is ‘18’. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Dependency along with Loss

¶65

of Future Prospects in Life’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶66

Rs.6,000/- + 2,400 (40% of 6,000) = Rs.8,400/Rs.8,400 – 4,200 (50% of 8,400) x 18 x 12 = Rs.9,07,200/-

¶67

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶68

in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited

¶69

3 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶70

10 -

¶71

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶72

v. Nanu Ram & Others⁴ and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi⁵ , the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘ Loss Of Consortium’ . Accordingly, Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Consortium including Loss Of Love And Affection’ . Further, compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head

¶73

‘Loss Of Estate And Funeral And Transportation’ .

¶74

Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entitled

¶75

for enhanced compensation as follows:

¶76

Loss of Dependency Along with : Rs. 9,07,200 Loss of Future Prospects 6,000/- + 2,400 (40% of 6,000) – 4,200 (50% of 8400) x 18 x 12 Loss of Consortium, Love and : Rs. 1,20,000/Affection (Rs.40,000 x3) Loss Of Estate And Funeral And : Rs. 30,000/Transportation TOTAL : Rs. 10,57,200/-

¶77

4 2018 ACJ 2782

¶78

5 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶79

11 -

¶80

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶81

Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,57,200/- as against

¶82

Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,29,265/(Rs.9,77,400 – Rs.5,27,935) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶83

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶86

ii. The impugned judgment and award 14.12.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.1121/2016, on

¶87

the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge &

¶88

12 -

¶89

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶90

MACT, Srirangapatna is modified to the

¶91

aforesaid extent.

¶92

iii. The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,29,265/(Rs.9,77,400 – Rs.5,27,935) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶93

iv. Respondent No.2 – insurance company shall pay the compensation to the appellants/claimants.

¶94

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶95

13 -

¶96

MFA No. 2773 of 2018

¶97

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶98

vii. No order as to costs.

¶99

Sd/JUDGE

¶100

Manjula v. Sunderraj G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula v. Sunderraj G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Arun Kumar D K Vs Sri Doresha G S

Smt Asha Vs Parashurama

R Ashwini Vs Syed Nawaz

Sri.B.G.Chandru Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Farida Begum Abdul Gaffar

Nataraj Vs Manjunatha. B. R.